RAMLAGAN ALIAS RAMLAKHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Judgment Criminal Appeal No, 445 of 1979 Birsingh v. State of M.P. is also disposed of as both these appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No.9 of 1979. Appellant Ramlagan and co -accused Suraj have been convicted under section 307 I.P.C. and each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. Besides, Ramlagan has been convicted under section 147 and Suraj under section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Suraj has served out his sentences and he has not preferred any appeal. The other appellants Ramsudhart, Ramdular, Radheshyam and Birsingh have been convicted under sections 147 and 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and 4 years respectively. Both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that complainant Tilakraj was running a dairy along with his brother by name Gulshan Dairy at Pariyat Jabalpur. Co -accused Suraj was an employee of the complainant. Appellants Ramsudhar, Ramdular and Ramlagan who are brothers were previously in the employment of the complainant. On 28 -7 -1977 co -accused Suraj demanded some money from the complainant and wanted leave to attend on his ailing mother. After taking accounts, it was found that the complainant had to recover Rs. 400/ - from Suraj as advance and leave both were refused. Thereupon, Suraj refused to work in his dairy and when he was asked to pay his dues he went away saying that he would clear his dues. At about 8 p.m. the complainant was in his dairy where Ramji (P.W. 7) who used to bring grass for cattle and servants Chhotelal @ Daddu and maidservant Maharajan Dokriya were present. At that time Suraj accompanied by 30 to 40 persons came armed with lathis, iron rods and ballam, the complainant was called out and as soon as he came out he was dragged out by Suraj and then one iron rod blow was given on his head by Ramlagan. Suraj also gave him a lathi blow on his head. Then Birsingh @ Gond Thakur also gave a lathi blow. Thereafter Ramsudhar, Ramdular, and rest of the persons also assaulted him. As a result, he fell down in an iron tub kept therefore giving water to the cattle. He was further assaulted by these persons and then they ran away from the spot after neighbours reached there to intervene. The complainant was carried in a truck by servants to the Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, where he was admitted. A message was sent by compounder Fattilal on phone that the complainant has been admitted in the hospital with multiple injuries, being assaulted by Suraj and others. He was first treated by Dr. Pandit who found extensive intermingled lacerated wounds over the middle part of skull, one lacerated wound over forehead, one lacerated wound over left leg and two contusions on the left elbow and right forearm. He was immediately admitted in the Intensive Care Ward as his condition was serious and he had to be given blood transfusion as he was profusely bleeding. He was then treated by Dr. Soni who, found 5 lacerated wounds on the head besides other injuries which were dangerous to life and could have resulted in death in the absence of medical aid. On taking X -ray, Dr. Thakur found that there was linear fracture of the parietal bone and fracture of the right ulna. These 5 appellants, co -accused Suraj and other acquitted accused were taken into custody. Identification parades were held, one in jail by Magistrate 1st Class and another outside the jail by an independent panch in which about 18 accused were put up for identification. After completing investigation, 21 persons were charge -sheeted for the offences under sections 147, 148 and 307/149 I.P.C. According to co -accused Suraj, he wanted to take leave in order to go and see his ailing mother but he was not permitted to leave the dairy and when he insisted on going, the complainant rushed towards him to beat him and fell down in the iron tub and received injuries. According to Ramdular and Ramsudhar, the complainant and his brother used to beat their servants in the dairy and all the servants of the adjoining dairies had gone in a procession to the house of the complainant to protest and that is why they have been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of complainant Tilakraj (P.W. 3) corroborated by Ramji (P.W.7) and Chhotelal (P.W. 9) the F.I.R. Ex. P. 17 and the medical evidence. Although all the three eye -witnesses are interested witnesses but there is no reason to disbelieve them and nothing has been brought out in their cross -examination. The employees in the adjoining dairies reached the spot after the incident was over, so they were not eye -witnesses. It was not necessary to examine each and. every eye -witnesses and so examination of the maid -servant Maharajan Dokriya was not necessary. They formed unlawful assembly and since overt act has been alleged only against these five appellants and co -accused Suraj, the rest have been held to be not members of that assembly. Co -accused Suraj and appellant Ramlagan have been found to be guilty for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. because they gave blows with lathi and iron rod causing linear fracture of the skull while others are liable with the aid of section 149, being members of that unlawful assembly the common object being to kill the complainant. This is evident from the fact that most of the injuries were caused on the held by lathis and iron rod. Accordingly, the appellants and co -accused Suraj have been convicted.

(3.) THE incident happened in the dairy of complainant Tilakraj at about 8 in the night. Natural witnesses for the incident would be those persons who were present inside the dairy i.e. Ramji (P.W. 7) and Chhotelal (P.W. 9) who were admittedly working there along with maid servant Maharajan Dokriya. Persons from the neighbouring dairies may have reached there after hearing the noise but by the time the incident was over. So the three eye witnesses examined are the best persons to narrate the incident. Simply because two of them happened to be servants of the complainant is not a sufficient ground to hold them as interested or partisan witnesses. In fact, the servants would try to support another servant instead of the master if other servants are being falsely implicated. It also does not stand to reason as to why complainant and his servants would not implicate the real assailants and implicate his previous servants with whom obviously he has no enmity except that they had left the job and taken employment elsewhere. Tilakraj has given a consistent statement throughout, first in the F.I.R. Ex. P. 17 and then as a witness in the Court. He has narrated as to how co -accused Suraj was annoyed and, left the dairy after he was not paid the advance demanded. Became with these appellants and others armed with lathis, iron rods and ballams. Suraj dragged him out and then he was assaulted with an iron rod on his head by Ramlagan followed by Suraj with a lathi. He was also assaulted with lathis by Ramsudhar, Ramdular, Radheshyam and Birsingh. Though the complainant claimed that he was assaulted by 30 to 40 persons but it has been found that except these assailants who have been named, rest were merely standing on the road although they had come with the assailants, perhaps they were all members of the employees union. It appears that there was some altercation between complainant and Suraj in which the latter must have been mishandled which enraged the dairy employees of the vicinity, otherwise the complainant would not have been so severely beaten simply because he refused to give advance to Suraj. Admittedly, appellants Ramlagan, Ramsudhar and Ramdular were previously in the employment of the complainant and he knew them from before. He also knew Radheshyam since 3/4 years and also Birsingh who was known as Gond Thakur. From the injuries found on the complainant, it has rightly been held that the assailants could not have been more than 5 to 6 persons. The complainant has properly identified all these appellants in this parcels except Ramlagan who was not put up for identification held on 27 -8 -79 conducted by Shri M.K. Tiwari Judicial Magistrate (P.W. 14) and Lallalal (P.W.12). Identification of these persons has not much value because they were known to the complainant from before and, in fact, they have all been named except RadheShyam in the F.I.R. recorded within few hours on regaining consciousness. He has been materially corroborated by his two servants Ramji (PW 7) and Chhotelal @ Daddu (PW 9) Ramji has deposed that the complainant was assaulted by Suraj and 10 to 12 other persons and he pointed out Suraj, Radheshyam and Birsingh because he knew them from before as these three were residing in his locality. Chhote Lal also stated that the complainant was assaulted by Suraj and 10 to 12 other persons and he pointed out Ramlagan, Ramsudhar, Ramdular and Birsingh whom he knew from before but not others. According to Dr. S.K Pandit (P.W. 1) who admitted the complainant in the hospital, though the complainant was conscious but due to the head injuries he was immediately taken to the Intensive Care Ward. At that stage, the complainant was not in a position to make a detailed statement and when he enquired the complainant informed that he has been beaten by Suraj and others with lathis; Dr. A. P, Soni (P.W. 2) then treated him and Ex. P. 3 is bed head ticket. Blood transfusion had to be given as there was profuse bleeding and the condition of the complainant was poor. As there were multiple lacerated wounds on the skull with fracture, the injuries were dangerous to life and would have resulted in death in the absence of medical aid. Dr. M. P. Thakur (P.W. 10) on taking X -ray found fractures of the parietal bone and the right ulna. Since all the blows were aimed on the head which is the vital part of the body and, the two injuries on the arms were sustained white warding off the blows and the blows were repeated even after the complainant had fallen down on the ground shows that the intention of the assailants was to take his life. After finding that he has fallen down unconscious, they had to leave him in that stage as others rushed there to intervene. Therefore, all the appellants, except Radheshyam, have been rightly convicted. So far as appellant Radheshyam is concerned, he has not been named in the F.I.R. nor any overt act was alleged against him though he was known to the complainant for the last 3/4 years but in evidence there is an improvement and the complainant has suggested that he also gave a lathi blow to him. There is no reason why, the name of Radhe Shyam would be missing from the F.I.R. when he was known and if he had actually assaulted the complainant. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit of doubt. Regarding sentence. Ramlagan and Suraj were found liable for the offence under Section 307 and the rest under section 307 with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code so appellants Ramsudhar, Ramdular and Birsingh are entitled to a lesser sentence.